• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do some creationists think evolution = atheism?

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I thought you might have the evidence, since you believe it is true. Apparently, you don't, and you are sending me to someone who might. Apparently, faith is enough for you. That's okay, I like faith. You can't believe anything at all without it.

I don't have evidence. I have seen evidence. You can see it, too. It's in the public domain and belongs to us all.

Did I offend you? Sorry. I'm just telling you why I don't often bring evidence to faith based thinkers requestiing it. It's pointless. If I do it, I do it for myself - one benefits by reviewing the subject and crafting a cogent, well evidenced argument, and hopefully, some people who share my values on evaluating information and deciding what is true will benefit as well.

I've been at this long enough to know that people that ask others to bring them evidence that they could easily find themselves, and would have already found long ago if their interest was sincere and their minds open to such information, are not really interested in that evidence.

They are interested in creating the impression that evidence is important to them.When it is presented, the answer is always the same: "That proves nothing." It's always an effort in vain.

Evidence isn't how the faith based thinker came to his present position, and evidence won't budge him from it. That is what faith means.

We've got a guy on another thread continually clamoring for evidence, daring the entire thread to bring him some, and calling it afraid because it knows that it can't.

In the meantime, he has made it clear that he won't click on a link - you must cut-and-paste for him. People have posted all kinds of evidence - some cut-and-paste - that he either dismisses as inadequate without giving a reason better than "That's just somebody's opinion" or "That fossil proves nothing," or doesn't address at all.

That's the game to which I referred, and all seasoned skeptical posters are very familiar with it.

If that doesn't describe you, I apologize, and extend an offer that you demonstrate your sincerity and interest by finding the evidence yourself on the Internet, review it, bring it back here, and we can discuss what if anything you disagreed with or didn't understand.

That's how I have learned almost everything I know since the end of my formal education: The active pursuit of information. They brought it to me in school, but not since.

What do you say?
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
I most certainly have explained it.
Note the double standard here. When Polymath explained C-14 dating to you, you demanded he provide evidence for every one of his claims. Yet your claim of C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago is allowed to go without evidence, citation, or any other support.

So, to be consistent with your approach to others, where is your evidence that C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago?

It is clear the universe is becoming less dense, and that would affect every element that exists in this universe. If you do not even acknowledge that density can affect the existence of carbon, how can you begin to understand that it may indeed affect the decay rate of C-14.

Provide your evidence that indicates C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago.

Now, please show that the density of the universe does not affect decay rates of radiometric isotopes used in dating methods.
Again, fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You're making the positive claims, you support them.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
I don't have evidence. I have seen evidence. You can see it, too. It's in the public domain and belongs to us all.

Did I offend you? Sorry. I'm just telling you why I don't often bring evidence to faith based thinkers requestiing it. It's pointless. If I do it, I do it for myself - one benefits by reviewing the subject and crafting a cogent, well evidenced argument, and hopefully, some people who share my values on evaluating information and deciding what is true will benefit as well.

I've been at this long enough to know that people that ask others to bring them evidence that they could easily find themselves, and would have already found long ago if their interest was sincere and their minds open to such information, are not really interested in that evidence.

They are interested in creating the impression that evidence is important to them.When it is presented, the answer is always the same: "That proves nothing." It's always an effort in vain.

Evidence isn't how the faith based thinker came to his present position, and evidence won't budge him from it. That is what faith means.

We've got a guy on another thread continually clamoring for evidence, daring the entire thread to bring him some, and calling it afraid because it knows that it can't.

In the meantime, he has made it clear that he won't click on a link - you must cut-and-paste for him. People have posted all kinds of evidence - some cut-and-paste - that he either dismisses as inadequate without giving a reason better than "That's just somebody's opinion" or "That fossil proves nothing," or doesn't address at all.

That's the game to which I referred, and all seasoned skeptical posters are very familiar with it.

If that doesn't describe you, I apologize, and extend an offer that you demonstrate your sincerity and interest by finding the evidence yourself on the Internet, review it, bring it back here, and we can discuss what if anything you disagreed with or didn't understand.

That's how I have learned almost everything I know since the end of my formal education: The active pursuit of information. They brought it to me in school, but not since.

What do you say?
My experience is, on forums such as this that when I request evidence to support particular claims, the claimant usually posts informational sites that do nothing but regurgitate yet more claims, without ever attaching any thing that I could possibly construe to be actual evidence. And usually, when I take the bate, and go and search the site for evidence, I am always disappointed and further inundated with yet more unsubstantiated claims. Also, it is my belief that if you cannot provide evidence from your own understanding, then you do not actually understand the concept or idea that you are trying to substantiate. And if you do not actually have the ability to show your evidence, it pretty much means that you believe in the concept without having evidence to support that concept. And that is faith. I do not care to see how faithful people are to science. I want to see the science that makes them so faithful to it.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
So you require others not only to prove their claims, but to disprove yours. Is that it?

Isn't that what science is supposed to do, to discredit false claims and to support truthful claims?

Not your claims or mine. The mission of science, it is not as you suggested. It is in the business of discovering how reality works. The process involves generating conclusions and submitting them for peer review, which is not limited to refereeing by journals, but also the vetting that the scientific community does for decades thereafter as it tests the ideas and attempts to find flaws in them.

If after multiple decades, the idea has never been falsified, especially if it allows accurate prediction and has a practical application in technology, the idea can be said to vetted.

That process has nothing to do with what is going on here. I am not science, and you are not a scientific hypothesis to be falsified or vetted.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Note the double standard here. When Polymath explained C-14 dating to you, you demanded he provide evidence for every one of his claims. Yet your claim of C-14 atoms being 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago is allowed to go without evidence, citation, or any other support.

So, to be consistent with your approach to others, where is your evidence that C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago?



Provide your evidence that indicates C-14 atoms were 4 times as dense less than 50,000 years ago.


Again, fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You're making the positive claims, you support them.
No, I'm sorry, Polymath simply submitted more claims. He did not submit evidence for any of his claims. And I said that C-14 is 4 times more dense than it was 200 million years ago, according to current flawed dating methods, not 50 thousand years ago.

I have no evidence, unless you are capable of seeing logic as evidence. The universe is expanding. The earth is expanding as well. The density of the earth is now nearly 4x less than it was 200 million years ago. It is my logical assumption that the elements, which are also a part of this expanding universe that is decreasing in density are decreasing in density as well. If my logic is unsound, show me why I am wrong.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
That isn't faith. That is confidence in the scientific process. A very, very different thing. You see, these types of things are done many times and tested by those who would love nothing more than to find an error. It would get their names into the books.

I have knowledge of the math and physics related to radioactive decay. I understand how the nucleus is shielded from the external environment by the electrons in orbitals around that nucleus. I understand the types of things that *can* affect the rates of radioactive decay. This is very well-known physics and applies to many situations other than what are used for dating methods. This physics has been extensively tested and the results of observation compared to the theoretical predictions.

Now, if you think the scientists have missed an effect that can change the decay rates by factors of a million or more, please let someone know!

Sure, sure...I get it. I understand perfectly. That is called blind faith. After-all, it's science we're talking about, right? How could it ever be wrong.

You aren't interested in learning. Nobody need bother dancing through hoops bringing information to you. What you just did was a classic case of simply dismissing something out of hand without counterargument.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Not your claims or mine. The mission of science, it is not as you suggested. It is in the business of discovering how reality works. The process involves generating conclusions and submitting them for peer review, which is not limited to refereeing by journals, but also the vetting that the scientific community does for decades thereafter as it tests the ideas and attempts to find flaws in them.

If after multiple decades, the idea has never been falsified, especially if it allows accurate prediction and has a practical application in technology, the idea can be said to vetted.

That process has nothing to do with what is going on here. I am not science, and you are not a scientific hypothesis to be falsified or vetted.
The idea of plate tectonics has been falsified, yet scientists who have placed their faith in the notion of tectonic plate subduction seem to remain firm in their faith to tectonic plate subduction...kinda like how the religious keep on believing contrary to being told there is no evidence of their god.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Faith in the sense that you imply is unjustified belief. Believing the that scientific community has a valid method that generates valid results is well evidenced by the fruits of that method, and is therefore justified belief, also sometimes called faith, such as faith that a car that has started 200 times in a row will start again the next time it is tested.

I see, so if science got it right once, they must be right in all cases. I see.

Straw man. Not my argument. That's yours.

What I said was that science has gotten it right countless times, and that that is reason to have confidence in its methods. That makes such a belief justified, and removes it from the category of religious type faith, which is unjustified belief.

I'm certain that you can see that unjustified belief and justified belief are radically different things and each deserves its own word.

Do you understand that?

So you didn't care to address that then, huh?

You make claims, they are rebutted, you ignore the rebuttal, and you will undoubtedly make the same claim again. As I said, all seasoned posters in venues such as this are quite familiar with this approach to Christian apologetics. It goes hand in hand with demanding evidence that one actually has no interest in and will dismiss out of hand as inadequate.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Straw man. Not my argument. That's yours.

What I said was that science has gotten it right countless times, and that that is reason to have confidence in its methods. That makes such a belief justified, and removes it from the category of religious type faith, which is unjustified belief.



So you didn't care to address that then, huh?

You make claims, they are rebutted, you ignore the rebuttal, and you will undoubtedly make the same claim again. As I said, all seasoned posters in venues such as this are quite familiar with this approach to Christian apologetics. It goes hand in hand with demanding evidence that one actually has no interest in and will dismiss out of hand as inadequate.
I'm sorry, I'm just looking at the science of plate tectonics as rationally as I can. I see with my eyes that the earth's continental crusts all fit together at one time in the past, and I know the ages of the oceans according to the mainstream scientific theories. It is apparent that the earth was much smaller in the past, and that when those continental plates were all together on one interconnected continuous crust, there were no oceanic plates. So I am simply and reasonable attempting to provide an answer. I'm sorry that is upsetting to your current faith in mainstream scientific beliefs.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
No, I'm sorry, Polymath simply submitted more claims. He did not submit evidence for any of his claims. And I said that C-14 is 4 times more dense than it was 200 million years ago, according to current flawed dating methods, not 50 thousand years ago.

I have no evidence, unless you are capable of seeing logic as evidence. The universe is expanding. The earth is expanding as well. The density of the earth is now nearly 4x less than it was 200 million years ago. It is my logical assumption that the elements, which are also a part of this expanding universe that is decreasing in density are decreasing in density as well. If my logic is unsound, show me why I am wrong.
The electrical attractive forces within atoms and the gravitational attractive forces within galaxies are sufficient to prevent matter and space from expanding within galaxies. It's only the intergalactic space, where there isn't enough attractive mass, that is expanding. And atoms have always been held together by strong electrical and nuclear forces and have never expanded since they were created either in stars or in the events following the Big Bang.
Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? - Universe Today
 

Jose Fly

Fisker of men
No, I'm sorry, Polymath simply submitted more claims. He did not submit evidence for any of his claims.
And according to your standards, that's exactly what you're doing, as shown by your very next sentence....

And I said that C-14 is 4 times more dense than it was 200 million years ago, according to current flawed dating methods, not 50 thousand years ago.
Note two things here. First, "And I said that..." is exactly the sort of thing that caused you to demand Polymath provide evidence for what he was saying. So as I described, it's a double standard. When Polymath says things, you demand evidence. When you say things, apparently no evidence is required. Double standard.

Second, Polymath and I have repeatedly explained (and provided citations for) how C-14 dating only works on objects less than 50,000 years old. So whatever conditions you think significantly altered C-14 decay rates over the last 50,000 years, you first need to demonstrate that those conditions existed then. And if your density assertions only apply 200+ million years ago, then of what relevance are they to the established C-14 dating results that cover the last 50,000 years?

I have no evidence
Thank you for admitting that.

unless you are capable of seeing logic as evidence.
Not in this case.

The universe is expanding. The earth is expanding as well. The density of the earth is now nearly 4x less than it was 200 million years ago. It is my logical assumption that the elements, which are also a part of this expanding universe that is decreasing in density are decreasing in density as well. If my logic is unsound, show me why I am wrong.
It's a matter of scales. Your core assumption is that density increases on the scale of planets, galaxies, and the entire universe apply in exact proportion to the sub-atomic scale. But we know from quantum mechanics that such an assumption isn't necessarily justified. The quantum world operates by very different rules than the rest of the universe.
 
Last edited:

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
The electrical attractive forces within atoms and the gravitational attractive forces within galaxies are sufficient to prevent matter and space from expanding within galaxies. It's only the intergalactic space, where there isn't enough attractive mass, that is expanding. And atoms have always been held together by strong electrical and nuclear forces and have never expanded since they were created either in stars or in the events following the Big Bang.
Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? - Universe Today
I see that your answer conforms to the claims made in the article you posted as evidence. Sadly, the article does not show any evidence to support the claims it makes. Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. Because I see no evidence that the expansion of the universe has no affect on the particles which are contained within it, I have no good reason to believe the claims. Can you provide evidence for any of these claims?
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
And according to your standards, that's exactly what you're doing, as shown by your very next sentence....


Note two things here. First, "And I said that..." is exactly the sort of thing that caused you to demand Polymath provide evidence for what he was saying. So as I described, it's a double standard. When Polymath says things, you demand evidence. When you say things, apparently no evidence is required. Double standard.

Second, Polymath and I have repeatedly explained (and provided citations for) how C-14 dating only works on objects less than 50,000 years old. So whatever conditions you think significantly altered C-14 decay rates over the last 50,000 years, you first need to demonstrate that those conditions existed then. And if your density assertions only apply 200+ million years ago, then of what relevance are they to the established C-14 dating results that cover the last 50,000 years?


Thank you for admitting that.


Not in this case.


It's a matter of scales. You're core assumption is that density increases on the scale of planets, galaxies, and the entire universe apply in exact proportion to the sub-atomic scale. But we know from quantum mechanics that such an assumption isn't necessarily justified. The quantum world operates by very different rules than the rest of the universe.
It would be my opinion that if the density of an element can change over time, such a change might have an impact on all radiometric dating methods. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that what I am proposing is not true. Do you have some?
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
The electrical attractive forces within atoms and the gravitational attractive forces within galaxies are sufficient to prevent matter and space from expanding within galaxies. It's only the intergalactic space, where there isn't enough attractive mass, that is expanding. And atoms have always been held together by strong electrical and nuclear forces and have never expanded since they were created either in stars or in the events following the Big Bang.
Is Everything in the Universe Expanding? - Universe Today
Yet no elements at all were emitted at the time of the event (the Big Bang). It was all light.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
You aren't interested in learning. Nobody need bother dancing through hoops bringing information to you. What you just did was a classic case of simply dismissing something out of hand without counterargument.
I am most certainly interested in learning. That is what I do. But if I am to learn something new, I believe it ought to be something that is at least reasonable if not evidential.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Hmmm, do you not suppose that the density of the universe at that time would not have supported the existence of these heavier elements?
Only the lightest elements developed early on in the very young universe, before there were stars and galaxies...and there were no planets, asteroids and comets yet, because these required the existence of even heavier elements.

These earliest elements are
  1. hydrogen,
  2. helium,
  3. and to much LESS abundant - lithium.
These elements first existed in the epoch known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), when the nuclei bound together the protons and neutrons (there are no neutrons within hydrogen nuclei).

But in this epoch (BBN), electrons have not yet bound themselves to these elements.

This BBN was first predicted by the Russian astrophysicist, George Gamow, in 1948, with the assistance of his former American student Ralph Alpher. Gamow included his BBN into Georges Lemaître's theory about expanding universe model.

1948 is the same year, when the name "Big Bang" was coined the first by Fred Hoyle.

Apparently, Hoyle was being interviewed on BBC radio about his own competing hypothesis, known as the Steady State model or Steady State theory. His theory was actually a hypothesis, not scientific theory, because it was untested.

Anyway Hoyle referred to Lemaître's expanding universe or inflationary universe theory as the "Big Bang" theory, so this name we got stuck with, even it doesn't really what the BB model is.

But getting back to Gamow and Alpher, in the same year (1948), both Alpher and his fellow-American physicist Robert Herman, with Gamow assistance wrote a separate paper that predicted the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

This CMBR occurred in the epoch known as the Recombination epoch, where electrons bound themselves to those earliest elements. Binding the electrons to the nuclei of those elements, release tremendous amount of energies in the form of photons (light) and heat.

If you understand your physics about electromagnetism, you would known that LIGHT have two dual (very fundamental, but different) properties. Light is both -
  1. wave, hence like all other electromagnetic energy, have measurable wavelengths and frequencies;
  2. and particle, e.g. photons.
What you might not know, that light or photons will decay over time, and billion of years will turn photons into microwave.

This is why radio telescopes and specially equipped space telescopes, first with COBE, then later WMAP and Planck space probe were able to detect CMBR.

CMBR was first detected in 1964, by two American physicists and astronomers - Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson - who won their Nobel Price for their discovery. This CMBR is what debunked Hoyle's Steady State model, and further confirm the Big Bang theory of Lemaître and Gamow-Alpher-Herman team.

My point is that history lesson about the Big Bang epochs (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Recombination epoch) is that the development of these light elements required to occur before the formation of the earliest generation of stars.

There no heavier elements before the stars, and more importantly no dusts yet. Dusts are waste byproducts, and they are made up of heavier elements.

My point is that without the heavier elements (such as iron and other metals) as well as the dusts, there can be no planets.

Stars are made out of largely hydrogen atoms. They (hydrogen atoms) are the fuel to form heavier elements.

If you do understand about the stars, including our sun, you would know, you would know that both the star's core and outer layers, are made out of hydrogen, the lightest of element in our universe.

You would also need to understand about nuclear physics too, especially about "nuclear fusion". Nuclear fusion work in the opposite direction to "nuclear frisson". You would only need to focus on nuclear fusion to understand how stars work and how heavier elements came to be.

To make heavier element, like the helium atoms, two hydrogen atoms need to fuse together to form a single helium atom. This process of fusion and producing heavier elements is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

When a star run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse together, it begin to fusing together helium atoms to make even heavier elements. When a star begin to use helium to fuse, the star begin its stage of dying.

There are four possible scenarios or fates when the stars end it life:
  1. the stage of first Red Giant, then White Dwarf, which will take billion of years, before the white dwarf lose all luminosity.
  2. go Supernova (star exploding)
  3. turn into neutron star
  4. or turn into Blackhole.
Which fate the star will end up, depends on the star's mass. The more mass star has, the more likely it will go supernova.

Our sun is a main sequence yellow dwarf star, so the star with same mass as our sun (known as solar mass), will end up as Red Giant, then as White Dwarf.

A red giant star is when star begin fusing helium into heavier elements, and it will begin losing the outer layers. These outer layers being stripped away and ejected, become debris in outer space, including tiny particles that we called star dusts. When the red giant star lose all the outer layer shells, only the star's core will remain, and that why it is called white dwarf star.

Stars more massive than our sun, at least 2 or 3 more solar masses, will become supernova, when the core reach its critical stage and explode. Like the red giant stars that eject debris and dust into space, so would a star that explode (supernova).

Ignoring the neutron stars and black holes, the debris and dust from those dying or dead stars, are the materials that make up objects like planets and asteroids.

To get back to bible's Genesis, the Big Bang theory doesn't support the creation, because according to Genesis 1:1, god created heaven and earth first. Stars, including our sun, wasn't created till the 4th creative day.

Our solar system, including the Earth and Sun, didn't exist when the first generation of stars exist in the young universe. Our solar system didn't appear until 9 billion years after the Big Bang and the earliest stars. Our sun is most likely a 3rd, if not 4th generation star.

There have to be enough debris to form planets, and there weren't much until 3rd generation of stars.

Our Earth and solar system may be 4.7 billion years old, but clearly the Earth didn't form before the earlier stars, which is the opposite of what Genesis 1:1 and the 4th day are saying.
 

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Only the lightest elements developed early on in the very young universe, before there were stars and galaxies...and there were no planets, asteroids and comets yet, because these required the existence of even heavier elements.

These earliest elements are
  1. hydrogen,
  2. helium,
  3. and to much LESS abundant - lithium.
These elements first existed in the epoch known as the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), when the nuclei bound together the protons and neutrons (there are no neutrons within hydrogen nuclei).

But in this epoch (BBN), electrons have not yet bound themselves to these elements.

This BBN was first predicted by the Russian astrophysicist, George Gamow, in 1948, with the assistance of his former American student Ralph Alpher. Gamow included his BBN into Georges Lemaître's theory about expanding universe model.

1948 is the same year, when the name "Big Bang" was coined the first by Fred Hoyle.

Apparently, Hoyle was being interviewed on BBC radio about his own competing hypothesis, known as the Steady State model or Steady State theory. His theory was actually a hypothesis, not scientific theory, because it was untested.

Anyway Hoyle referred to Lemaître's expanding universe or inflationary universe theory as the "Big Bang" theory, so this name we got stuck with, even it doesn't really what the BB model is.

But getting back to Gamow and Alpher, in the same year (1948), both Alpher and his fellow-American physicist Robert Herman, with Gamow assistance wrote a separate paper that predicted the existence of Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).

This CMBR occurred in the epoch known as the Recombination epoch, where electrons bound themselves to those earliest elements. Binding the electrons to the nuclei of those elements, release tremendous amount of energies in the form of photons (light) and heat.

If you understand your physics about electromagnetism, you would known that LIGHT have two dual (very fundamental, but different) properties. Light is both -
  1. wave, hence like all other electromagnetic energy, have measurable wavelengths and frequencies;
  2. and particle, e.g. photons.
What you might not know, that light or photons will decay over time, and billion of years will turn photons into microwave.

This is why radio telescopes and specially equipped space telescopes, first with COBE, then later WMAP and Planck space probe were able to detect CMBR.

CMBR was first detected in 1964, by two American physicists and astronomers - Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson - who won their Nobel Price for their discovery. This CMBR is what debunked Hoyle's Steady State model, and further confirm the Big Bang theory of Lemaître and Gamow-Alpher-Herman team.

My point is that history lesson about the Big Bang epochs (Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and Recombination epoch) is that the development of these light elements required to occur before the formation of the earliest generation of stars.

There no heavier elements before the stars, and more importantly no dusts yet. Dusts are waste byproducts, and they are made up of heavier elements.

My point is that without the heavier elements (such as iron and other metals) as well as the dusts, there can be no planets.

Stars are made out of largely hydrogen atoms. They (hydrogen atoms) are the fuel to form heavier elements.

If you do understand about the stars, including our sun, you would know, you would know that both the star's core and outer layers, are made out of hydrogen, the lightest of element in our universe.

You would also need to understand about nuclear physics too, especially about "nuclear fusion". Nuclear fusion work in the opposite direction to "nuclear frisson". You would only need to focus on nuclear fusion to understand how stars work and how heavier elements came to be.

To make heavier element, like the helium atoms, two hydrogen atoms need to fuse together to form a single helium atom. This process of fusion and producing heavier elements is known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis.

When a star run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse together, it begin to fusing together helium atoms to make even heavier elements. When a star begin to use helium to fuse, the star begin its stage of dying.

There are four possible scenarios or fates when the stars end it life:
  1. the stage of first Red Giant, then White Dwarf, which will take billion of years, before the white dwarf lose all luminosity.
  2. go Supernova (star exploding)
  3. turn into neutron star
  4. or turn into Blackhole.
Which fate the star will end up, depends on the star's mass. The more mass star has, the more likely it will go supernova.

Our sun is a main sequence yellow dwarf star, so the star with same mass as our sun (known as solar mass), will end up as Red Giant, then as White Dwarf.

A red giant star is when star begin fusing helium into heavier elements, and it will begin losing the outer layers. These outer layers being stripped away and ejected, become debris in outer space, including tiny particles that we called star dusts. When the red giant star lose all the outer layer shells, only the star's core will remain, and that why it is called white dwarf star.

Stars more massive than our sun, at least 2 or 3 more solar masses, will become supernova, when the core reach its critical stage and explode. Like the red giant stars that eject debris and dust into space, so would a star that explode (supernova).

Ignoring the neutron stars and black holes, the debris and dust from those dying or dead stars, are the materials that make up objects like planets and asteroids.

To get back to bible's Genesis, the Big Bang theory doesn't support the creation, because according to Genesis 1:1, god created heaven and earth first. Stars, including our sun, wasn't created till the 4th creative day.

Our solar system, including the Earth and Sun, didn't exist when the first generation of stars exist in the young universe. Our solar system didn't appear until 9 billion years after the Big Bang and the earliest stars. Our sun is most likely a 3rd, if not 4th generation star.

There have to be enough debris to form planets, and there weren't much until 3rd generation of stars.

Our Earth and solar system may be 4.7 billion years old, but clearly the Earth didn't form before the earlier stars, which is the opposite of what Genesis 1:1 and the 4th day are saying.
I missed the reason in this well written explanation for why only the lightest elements developed early on in the very young universe.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You claim it is not the reason. You claim the heavier elements have to built up...very scientific. Density has nothing to do with it, and you know this because?

Because of the nature of the nucleus and how it sits inside the atom. If you don't understand this, it is pointless to talk any more about it.

Yes, the heavier elements have to be built up from the protons and neutrons that were in existence primordially. We know this because of the abundances of the elements in the universe and how it matches the thermodynamics and cross-sections for the various isotopes.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Where is your data indicating that it wasn't?

It's irrelevant. Even increasing the density of the *materials* by a factor of 100 wouldn't affect the decay rates, A factor of 4 would be trivial.

Besides, and once again, if you are talking about 200 million years ago, you are neither talking about C-14 (requiring dates less than 50,000 years) nor are you talking about the early universe (the universe is about 13.7 billion years old).

What you have managed to do is throw up some smokescreens showing your lack of understanding of the basics of radioactive decay. That's fine if you really want to learn something, but it is clear you do not. You want to trash everything and play with irrelevancies.

The expansion of the universe doesn't change the density of the Earth (or even the solar system, or, for that matter our galaxy). When the universe was four times denser than today, space was still a far better vacuum than anything we can produce on Earth. Why you think that would cause the Earth itself to expand is beyond me.
 
Top